Turkey's Legal Approach to Maritime Boundary Delimitation in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea.

• Author: Acer, Yucel
• Position: ARTICLE

For more than a decade, the states bordering the Eastern Mediterranean Sea have been in disagreement over the delineation of their maritime boundaries. The disagreements concern various parts of the region and create enormous political tension over energy-related activities. Ever since Egypt and the Greek Administration of Southern Cyprus (GASC) signed the very first delimitation agreement of the region, without securing Turkey's involvement, Turkey has issued many official statements and carried out energy-related activities in the region. Based on the principle that maritime delimitation should be carried out to reach an equitable solution by taking all the relevant circumstances into account, Turkey has developed a comprehensive legal approach as to the maritime delimitation in the Eastern Mediterranean and even submitted a map to the UN to demonstrate Turkey's claimed continental shelf and Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) areas. The details of this comprehensive approach should be examined, to identify both the claims of Turkey over the maritime borders and the related legal arguments.

Keywords: Eastern Mediterranean Sea, Maritime Delimitation, Maritime Delimitation Law, Turkey's Legal Arguments

Introduction

The Mediterranean Sea is a narrow enclosed sea requiring the coastal states to draw maritime boundaries to separate their respective continental shelves and Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ). The Eastern Mediterranean Sea is currently the most contested section. The coastal States have conflicting views concerning the possible courses of the maritime borders. Alongside the disagreements over the delimited areas, the established boundaries through bilateral agreements have not secured the endorsement of all the related sides. These maritime boundary disputes cause the political tension to flare-up whenever one side or more conduct energy-related activities. In almost every instance, a coastal State has contested the act of the other bringing the whole situation to a point of near military confrontation.

Maritime delimitation is a difficult process if islands are involved. Parties do not easily agree on the size of the maritime areas to be accorded to islands. In fact, islands have been at the core of the disagreements in all the maritime delimitation disputes. The related states are left with no choice but to take the disputes to international courts for settlement. Other geographical features such as the geographical location of the coasts of the related States and their respective coastal lengths create relatively less complicated situations. (1)

Regardless of its surrounding political circumstances, the Eastern Mediterranean is a difficult region for maritime delimitation basically due to the presence of islands, namely the island of Cyprus and Greek islands of Crete (Girit), Kasos (Cohan Adasi), Karpathos (Kerpe), Rhodes (Rodos) and Kastellorizo (Meis).

The legal arguments of the States in the region over this rather technical matter carry therefore a significant value if the settlement is to be sought through international law. This review focuses on the legal approach of Turkey without a detailed evaluation. The aim here is rather to identify both the claims of Turkey over the maritime borders and to review legal arguments to clarify the fundamental points of this approach.

The Developments over the Maritime Areas in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea

Despite its frequent use, the geographical limits of "the Eastern Mediterranean Sea" do not have a comprehensive agreement. (2) This is not however a matter to settle here as far as maritime delimitation is concerned. Disputing parties or competent courts should not bind themselves with such a definition but rather with the coastal projections that "meet and overlap" in a delimitation process. (3) It is however clear which countries are involved in the issue of maritime delimitation in the region. The states which are actually and potentially affected by maritime delimitation in the region are Turkey Egypt, Greece, Israel, Palestine, Libya, Lebanon, Syria, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC), and the Greek Administration of Southern Cyprus (GASC).

Six countries, namely Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Libya, Egypt, and the GASC have declared EEZ. (4) Since there is no need for declaration, other states, including Turkey, have continental shelf areas. Some states have chosen to sign an EEZ Delimitation Agreement without a declaration. (5) EEZ is part of the memorandum that Turkey signed with Libya on November 17, 2019. Therefore, Turkey does apply an EEZ in the Eastern Mediterranean, at least in relation to Libya.

The very first disagreement over the establishment of maritime boundaries emerged when a delimitation treaty was signed between the GASC and Egypt on February 17, 2003. (6) Turkey made an immediate formal objection to the treaty arguing that it infringed on its possible continental shelf areas. (7) It was also argued that the GASC acted illegitimately by ignoring the Turkish side of the island of Cyprus. (8) The exploration licenses, which were based on this disputed treaty, (9) also provoked objections and preventive measures from Turkey. (10)

Despite these objections, the GASC continued to sign similar treaties. It signed a delimitation treaty with Lebanon on January 17, 2007, (11) and later with Israel on December 17, 2010. The TRNC has officially objected to these treaties on the grounds that the GASC was not the sole legal representative of the whole island and that it, therefore, violated the continental shelf rights of the TRNC. (12) Lebanon also objected to the treaty between the GASC and Israel arguing that it violated its own area in the adjacent section between the two countries. (13)

Following all these delimitation treaties, Turkey did not only raise official objections but also took some practical measures by conducting exploration activities and taking preventive measures against the foreign ships licensed by the GASC. Not surprisingly, the GASC too frequently raised objections to the Turkish acts. (14) Moreover, Turkey signed a Continental Shelf Delimitation Agreement with the TRNC on September 21, 2011 and established the continental shelf boundary between the two sides in the North of the Island. (15) Based on the treaty, the Government of the TRNC issued exploration licenses to the Turkish Petroleum Corporation (TPAO) covering both the North and South of the Island. (16)

A similar but more recent step by Turkey is the Delimitation Agreement with Libya. Following the negotiations between the Turkish President and the Chairman of the Presidential Council of Libya, Turkey signed the "Memorandum of Understanding on the Delimitation of Maritime Jurisdictions in the Mediterranean Sea" on November 27, 2019, with the Libyan Government of National Accord. The agreement established the continental shelf and the EEZ maritime boundary between the two countries, shown on a map attached to the Memorandum. (17) The treaty came into effect on December 8, 2019. (18) There are objections to this agreement by Greece, (19) Egypt, (20) and Syria. (21) They argue that the agreement is null and void as "it has not been ratified by the Libyan Parliament." The EU appears to be unhappy with the agreement as well. (22)

As the final development in the series of disputed maritime delimitation treaties, Greece and Egypt signed an EEZ Delimitation Agreement on August 6, 2020, also covering the area previously delimited by Turkey and Libya. Turkey declared this agreement null and void, as it "violated the continental shelf/EEZ areas of both Turkey and Libya." (23) This brief account of developments clearly demonstrates that the above-mentioned treaties have not resolved the existing disputes but rather created new ones. The disputed maritime treaties, as well as the un-delimited areas, still constitute the core of the maritime disputes in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea.

Turkey's Claims on Maritime Jurisdictional Areas in the Eastern Mediterranean

Turkey has gradually clarified the extent of its claimed areas through official communications, the concessions were given to the TPAO, and bilateral delimitation agreements. In an official letter, Turkey made it quite clear that the areas falling beyond the western part of the longitude 32[degrees]16T8" are ibso facto and ab initio the Turkish continental shelf or EEZ. (24) Turkey, therefore, considered all areas beyond the territorial waters of the GASC to the West of the Island as the continental shelf or EEZ of Turkey. (25)

This claim was further confirmed in the petroleum concessions given by Turkey to the TPAO to the West of the island of Cyprus. The concessions given on April 27, 2012 in the area of No: XVI covered the West of the island of Cyprus beyond the longitude 32[degrees]16' 18" E up to a certain line. (26) Similar concessions were given to the TPAO to the West of the island of Cyprus in both 2007 and 2008.

Concerning the area between Turkey and Egypt, on the other hand, Turkey requested the boundary to "follow the median line between the Turkish and Egyptian coastline, the western terminal point of which will be determined in accordance with the outcome of the future agreement in the Aegean Sea as well as the Mediterranean among all concerned States, taking into account all relevant and special circumstances." (27) Turkey, therefore, claims that the boundary between Turkish and Egyptian coasts should be a median line, leaving the western part to be decided with an agreement among all related states. (28)

The most controversial section of the delimitation area in the region is currently the area between the Turkish coastline and Greece. Contrary to the Greek stance to give full effect to all Greek islands including the tiny island of...